Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Re: Obama....Live Thread

Posted on 12/05/2008 6:33:15 AM PST by maineman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 801-805 next last
To: couchpotatoxxx12

“McCain is irrelevant. If O is deemed ineligible, the President will be Biden, Pelosi, or Hillary. So basically, it’s lose-lose for our party. But at least we uphold the constitution.”

Are you sure that if Obama is deemed ineligible that Biden, Pelosi or Hillary will be the next President? If that is the case, knowing that Obama holds the “most liberal” card, then Biden, Pelosi and Hillary can’t be any worse than Obama as president.

Upholding the Constitution IS the top priority, in my opinion.


281 posted on 12/05/2008 10:12:06 AM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

“Joe Thunder, LA radio personality, reports that Big Media is on scene at SCOTUS, ABC, NBC, Washington Times, et al. There are about 50 people there now. Prayer happened. Media is interviewing everyone.
It’s perfect. No signs, well behaved, etc. Let’s hope it holds. Media is calling us as well.
A radio station in New York City wants to talk to me about Leo. Then Florida called. Then Georgia called. Then Pennsylvania called. Then Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, and Denver called. Now I have 3 more waiting me on in the next hour — Ed Hale, plainsradio.com.”

Thank you for that news report.


282 posted on 12/05/2008 10:13:35 AM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
"I agree. Rule of Law is much more important than any one personality. Today could signal the last day of our constitutional republic if the Supremes don’t have enough courage."

I agree wholeheartedly.

If the SCOTUS fails to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution, then I guess we are lawlessness and anarchy rules, correct?

283 posted on 12/05/2008 10:13:58 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

That’s pretty much how California is operating right now.


284 posted on 12/05/2008 10:14:44 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; calenel; montesquiue; Non-Sequitur; flaglady47; Newtiebacker; GBA; so_real; ...

>>> The reporter I heard on the msm said that the American voters said he was eligible by voting him in. Now, what the hell does that mean?

>> Check out comment #86 if you want to ruin the rest of your day.

LucyT, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I’ve heard this elsewhere, akin to a SOS “certifying” the candidate qualification, the ballot, etc.

“Once it’s done, it cannot be undone.” “We can’t undo the will of the people” — I’ve heard that one, too. Don’t believe it. In California, a NON-citizen was removed this year as Mayor because he was unqualified.

Upholding the Constitution is a whole hell of a lot more important than letting a unConstitutionally-qualified person assume the Presidency.

We can’t even get it into these numskull Obots that there’s a difference between a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen.”

The MSM projects the “truth” they want us to believe.

Just like in Animal Farm, when “All animals are created equal,” evolves into “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others”

Or better said, “Just because you keep repeating the same Talking Point DOESN’T MEAN IT’S TRUE.”


285 posted on 12/05/2008 10:14:48 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

If the SCOTUS kicks the suit back to the NJ SOS, all hell breaks loose because every other SOS (49 of them, and let’s not forget the territories) will be required to validate the candidates (as they should have done in the first place.) I think the SCOTUS will seek a ruling, to prevent this nightmare (of Biblical proportions) from reaching critical mass. Either way, I say bring it on and settle this Constitutional issue once and for all. I believe that in the end, future candidates will be vetted as to their eligibility where required.


286 posted on 12/05/2008 10:15:02 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“FOX is concentrating on the O.J. sentencing. I guess they have their priorities and we have our’s.”

One thing to consider is that just because OJ is on the air right now does not mean that all of FOX’s reporters are sitting around watching it too. Hopefully there’s a Fox reporter on the scene at the SCOTUS. Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter really...they’ll probably get the facts wrong anyhow.


287 posted on 12/05/2008 10:15:13 AM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
To: etraveler13 Read how it works, the only other person running for PRESIDENT at the time, was John McCain...Period. Not true. The democratic slate of electors would be able to vote for whomever they wanted. There is NOTHING that stops an elector for changing their vote in the electoral college. That's why they are always the staunchest party loyals that are chosen for it.

This is where I get confused. I live in a state that has 2 electoral votes. My state is fully democratic. Now we have 2 democrat electors and 2 republican electors which gives you 4. If BO won, then those 2 electors get to vote.

Now here's the question - he fraudulently ran - he was and is not eligible to run - right? SO, why would the democratic electors get to vote? Wouldn't all 4 get to vote since he is ineligible? Please answer that!
288 posted on 12/05/2008 10:15:54 AM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Have you checked “Faithless Elector” laws?

Show me one elector that has been sent to jail for changing their vote.

Second thing, they can only be punished AFTER they cast their vote. It either is recorded as they voted or voided depending on the state.

Third thing, some of those states use secret ballot for the electors. There's no way in hell you can get a conviction for a faithless elector law in a secret ballot.

289 posted on 12/05/2008 10:16:19 AM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

OOPS! Calero - not Cabrera!

Candidate on the socialist party ticket who was not born in the US.


290 posted on 12/05/2008 10:16:45 AM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

Welcome


291 posted on 12/05/2008 10:16:47 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Tagline on vacation during the grand experiment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: maineman

292 posted on 12/05/2008 10:17:08 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life ;o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

I’d like to see renditions of the Constitution, passports and certificates of live birth held high in the hands of those attending the vigil at the SCTUS today. ;o)


293 posted on 12/05/2008 10:17:22 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: couchpotatoxxx12; Centurion2000
Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote? - US Electoral College
294 posted on 12/05/2008 10:17:22 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
But...picture this...lets say (hypothetically) that they decide to have a new election, can you see the DUmmies heads spinning as Bush is left in office longer while they have this election...ha ha ha ha ha

There wouldn't be a second election. The electoral college would either rack up a record number of faithless electors as they start to change their vote (presumably to Biden or maybe Hillary) or Obama would be dropped from the ticket and Biden assumes the Presidency.

295 posted on 12/05/2008 10:19:05 AM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U

We will have a nation lesson in which party is infected with lawless people and which one pursues the rule of law ... I sure hope you know the difference at the start. BLOAT


296 posted on 12/05/2008 10:19:21 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
My post was confusing.
2 democrat electors
2 republican electors

BO wins the state which means 2 democrat electors get to vote.
Bo is a fraud and ineligible to run.

Why would you allow those 2 democratic electors vote? Why would you not allow the republican electors vote?
297 posted on 12/05/2008 10:19:43 AM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

I believe you might be mistaken. Berg’s case was denied, I’m pretty sure. However, Justice Souter did issue some sort of request for Obama and the DNC to produce the documents named by Monday (birth certificate and several other things). It is not clear whether Obama and the DNC ignored or complied with this request.


298 posted on 12/05/2008 10:19:46 AM PST by baa39 (www.FightFOCA.com - innocent lives depend on you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Exactly. The MSM is still on their “lets move on, nothing to this” cover up mode and will continue. We will know soon what the SCOTUS decides.


299 posted on 12/05/2008 10:19:58 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
John Kennedy, 1962 White House speech


300 posted on 12/05/2008 10:21:19 AM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 801-805 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson